Avro Antelope

[cheddar cheese]

Ah, I thought it was some kind of lanc...

B-29s are fare more beautiful machines.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

if you mean "far more" then no, lanc are far better machines..........

[cheddar cheese]

B-29 is superior to the lanc in every way.

[HealzDevo]

Interesting aircraft. The Lancaster was a useful plane, although it was relegated to night bombing because it was aging. It couldn't really defend itself that well against German fighters. The B-29 Superfortress could. Therefore these bombers both played a very useful role. Incidently bare metal on an operational plane is just suicidal as the paint from what I have heard slows the round down and minimizes damage to some extent. A lot of planes were destroyed apparently from bare metal on metal sparks at the end of WW2. The sparks from the hit metal could hit those oxygen tanks and blow the plane skyhigh.

[plan_D]

The Lancaster, aging?

The Lancaster wasn't RELEGATED to Night Role, it was sent to night role because the RAF lacked any long range escort fighters. Look what was happening to the US 8th AF without effective long range escort fighters.

[mosquitoman]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

i'd much rather run off with PA474............

I'll elope with W4050 then
In the words of Captin Flasheart: "Get in her 5 times a day and take her to heaven and back"

[BombTaxi]

Just to reinforce plan_D's point, the Lanc wasnt made a night bomber because it had poor armament...it was DESIGNED with night bombing in mind, so didnt need as many guns as the US heavies! No RAF heavy was ever employed on regular daylight work, because the RAF didnt carry out daylight strategic bombing as part of it's offensive operations.
Furthermore, it was in fact a newer a/c than either the B-17 or B-24 - the oldest RAF heavy was the Stirling, which was out of service by mid-war - the age of the a/c had nothing to do with it's role.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

what do you mean lancs didn't bomb by day!!

lancasters carried out thousands of daylight raids in late 44/45!!

and yes the RAF learned with the whimpy that bombing by day was suicide, and so any bomer post-wellington was designed as a night bomber, hence the lact of armourment, but if you think that

Originally Posted by HealzDevo

The Lancaster was a useful plane

you are very much underestimating the lancaster, she was one of the deciding factors in the war OVER Europe..........

Originally Posted by HealzDevo

It couldn't really defend itself that well against German fighters

it had enough to scare off allot of fighters, fact is, no plane can be invincible, you will always have to face losses, but if you think that pure weight of guns will save you from a fighter, look at the B-17, she was packed with guns, still easy meat..........

The B-29 Superfortress could

oh yes?? you have combat records of the B-29 flying missions against germany where she came up against german fighters?? because i would very much like to see them.....

the B-29 never flew missions against german fighter opposition, as such you cannot cloaim that she could defend herself, the only missions she flew were against poor fighter opposition by day and almost non existant opposition by night over japan........

[cheddar cheese]

He never said it didnt bomb by day, he said they didnt do it regularly...

[trackend]

I'm sure Lanc will either confirm or refute this but didn't the Lanc drop a larger tonnage of bombs in Europe than any other single bomber?

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Originally Posted by BT

the RAF didnt carry out daylight strategic bombing as part of it's offensive operations

CC, Bomb taxi did say they didn't bomb by day.............

And I don't have very extensive sources on the B-17, but the source I do have (the data I believe alder posted), states that the B-17 dropped 640,036 tons of bombs, however it does not give a time frame, this could include pre-war, and it does not give location, some of this tonnage could have been dropped over the pacific. This tonnage was dropped over 291,508 sorties (same source), so by my reckoning this is an average of 2.92 tons carried per sortie, and as far as I know the USAAF didn't use many, if any, incendiaries and no mines............

In comparison the lancaster dropped 604,612 tons of bombs, all over Europe, all during wartime. Now whilst yes, this figure is lower than that of the B-17, the lancaster also carried an amazing 51,513,105 incendiaries!! and when you consider the RAF's smallest incendiary weighed 4lbs, we're looking at atleast annother 95,559 tons, in incendiaries, however as there were bigger incenduries this figure will actually be higher. the current totally for the lanc now stands at 700,171 tons, already higher than the tally for the B-17 (and all other bombers in Europe). Then (yes there's more) the lancaster also laid over 12,000 sea mines, and we can assume the bulk of these were 1,850 lb parachute mines, so this is annother 9,910 tons, bringing the total up to 710,081 tons! whilst this is not all bombs, it is all offensive weapons loads, so the lancaster did carry a greater tonnage than the B-17, it simply wasn't all bombs.

And if we take the lancaster's final tonnage figure, and bear in mind the lanc made 156,308 operational sorties, the lanc carried, on average, 4.5 tons per sortie, however due to my calculations using the minimum figures, the actual number would be higher........

So to conclude, not only did the lancaster carry more tonnage per sortie than any other plane in Europe, the lanc carried, when all offensive stores are taken into account, more tonnage than any other plane over Europe...........

And as a side note, the lanc also carried a further 6,684 tons of food to starving dutch people during operation manna of May 1945..........

and again, post war, the lancaster carried a further 74,000 now ex-prisoners of war back to Britain...........

[cheddar cheese]

The Lancaster did? Wouldnt it make more sense if the York was taking them back?

[BombTaxi]

There were very few Yorks (or other dedicated long-range transports) in RAF service at wars end, hence using the heavies as transports.

I wasnt trying to imply that Lancs didnt bomb at night... I know that they did. However, I was trying to point out (to Healz) that the flaws he percieves in the LAnc were due to the a/c being designed for a primary role of night-time area bombing...because that was the primary activity of Bomber Command's heavy bomber groups

[evangilder]

Lanc, I am not sure about incendiaries with the B-17. The tonnage and sortie figure I am pretty sure is for the duration of the US involvement in the war, in all theaters. I have seen that number in numerous boosk and they all say that those numbers were "during the war".

B-17s were also used in Operation Mana. Heavies from the allies were used for both that and repatriating POWs. So they were useful in peacetime as well.

Do you know if the Lanc was used in any firefighting roles postwar? I would think with its payload capability, it would have been a good water dropper.

[plan_D]

I have to say, that was probably the most extensive, well thought-out and informative post that lanc has ever done!